Mandatory minimums and high drug guidelines lead to grave punishments. In search of a better outcome, clients and their lawyers often choose to cooperate with the government, to sit down across a table to talk, to trade a defendant’s hat for a witness’s hat. Congress also invented the safety-valve provision to lessen draconian penalties in drug cases, and there, too, clients and lawyers must make a proffer to the government. It’s all quite complicated.
On the second day of our St. Crispin’s Day CLE, Leigh Ann Webster and the FDP’s own Millie Dunn will illuminate the important distinctions between the safety-valve proffer and the cooperation proffer. They will illustrate how they approach cooperation with their clients and will highlight the important rights a client gives up in that high-wire setting.
And they will cover one more topic. In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), a witness refused to testify before a grand jury and cited his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, although prosecutors had granted him immunity from the use of his testimony in later criminal proceedings. The court found him in contempt for failing to testify. The Supreme Court held that the district court was right to compel Kastigar’s testimony following the grant of immunity. Leigh Ann will talk about her recent Kastigar litigation in our district court, where her client’s cooperation fell apart, and trial loomed. How did it all end? You’ll have to come to Crispy to find out.
If you have not yet signed up to join us at Crispy, here is the registration link. We can’t wait to see you.